Which resetting anchor should I go for ??

Delfin said:
I merely noted in my post the reasons why hoop style anchors have, IMO, some disadvantages over anchors without but that if you really want one, suggested that perhaps choosing one that was stronger rather than weaker might be sensible. Apparently not to you.

And how, pray tell, would you know how new the particular Rocna I saw is, Scooter? It still had the barcode sticker on the side, so I presume it was purchased recently, but if you read what I wrote (something I've noted you have difficulty with), you would see that I said the barcode was from Suncoast, not CMP. The issue isn't whether the Q620 shanks of CMP made anchors will bend. Of course they will because any steel will if you load them beyond the yield strength of the shank, which in the case of the Rocna is around 20% lower load factor than an equivalent Manson. The issue is whether if one has a choice (one does) of purchasing an anchor with weaker steel vs. one with stronger steel why would one chose the weaker?

You wouldn't be a Rocna owner would you? I find the most enthusiastic supporters of less for more are those already finding themselves holding the short straw. But I will leave you to your musings Scooter, as you appear to be a troll and trolls are best left to talk to themselves.
Click to expand...

It seems reasonable to ask for some more details of your claims - "see a number of bent shanks", - how many, what sizes, photos? Also, where are the lots of bent rocnas made from q620 steel. As details appear to be absent it very much looks like you have your own mind made up on the matter unaffected by any lack of evidence.
 
Delfin said:
Even though this subject has been done to death, anchors are a critical piece of safety gear so it's not surprising it stays a current topic. Here is one person's opinion, which as you know, is something everyone has.

Roll bar anchors: Roll bars serve a theoretical purpose, but many are starting to suspect they may be tail fins on a Cadillac. One poster on Cruising Forum states he cut the roll bar off his Manson five years ago and has lived on the hook with no problems since then. Be that as it may, the roll bar will provide two disadvantages. First, it will prevent the anchor from digging in as well as it might otherwise. Yes, I know people say they dive on their Rocna/Manson/Bugel and say they are buried, but in the same sea bed an anchor without a roll bar would have buried deeper. The deeper you go, the denser the substrate and if dug into that, the better the holding. The other disadvantage is that once dug in, the roll bar presents an impediment to rotation that puts a significant load on the shank. Peter Smith (previously) claimed that because of the design, the Rocna absolutely, positively had to use Q690 steel, like Bisalloy 80. Manson does use this grade, which is probably why I have never heard of a bent Manson shank, but once Rocna cheapened their steel, lots of bent shanks appeared and still are appearing. Based on this, I wouldn't want a roll bar anchor but it you have your heart set on one, then go with the Manson. Even the new Rocna uses Q620 which is better than the rubbish they snuck in earlier, but still not as strong as the Manson. So, unless the Rocna is A LOT cheaper, avoid.

One other roll bar that stands by itself is the Super Sarca. It is a convex design as opposed to the concave design of the others mentioned, and its roll bar is so thin it is reported not to have the difficulty rotating when partially or fully buried so reportedly puts less load on the shank. All of the above have very good holding power. Also an exception is the Knox, which I don't hear anything about, but which is made of even stronger steel than the Manson. Looks intriguing, but I wonder if the split fluke would collect little rocks, and impede burying occasionally.

In the non roll bar, 3rd generation anchor you have a few choices - Spade, Excel, Ultra, Boss, Tern and probably a few others not much used. All of these are 'diving' anchors, so IMHO will out hold a roll bar design simply because they will all go deeper into the seabed. I exclude the Delta because I'm not sure it is a 3rd generation anchor, and besides and for whatever reason users do report that they can drag frequently, and there have been reports of bending shanks.

The jury is out on the Boss because it is brand new, but second hand reports claim some problems with bending shanks even though made of Bisalloy 80, probably because the shank is so very thin. Who knows, but I would be reluctant to be the first on my block to own one, plus they are so HUGE, your vessel would look like a waterborne Abrams tank from the bow.

That leaves the Spade, Excel, Ultra and a new one, the Tern. The Tern needs testing and may be great or horrible - but until we know, best to stand aside. If you can get an Excel in your area, methinks this is the best anchor out there. Made of Bisallow 80, dives and from all testing I have seen holds as well or better than anything. The Spade is also very good although some people are made nervous by the bolt that attaches the shank to the flukes. And with apologies to all Spade owners, butt ugly, IMO. They look like a high school shop project, but also are a fantastic anchor for digging in and holding. The Ultra is what I have and because it is new my experience with it is somewhat limited I would humbly suggest that it is actually an improvement on the Spade. Little testing has been done because they are mostly bought by people who want bling for their boats and they are very expensive. We anchor mostly and so far it looks really good. Whether the hollow and internally reinforced shank will ever bend or not, well time will tell, but I doubt it.

Hope that helps, and my sincerest and humblest apologies to any design I didn't mention, but it is only because I don't know enough to comment.

p.s. Keep the Danforth as a storm anchor. The Fortress/Guardian/Danforth design is a wonderful hurricane backup. Digs in really deep - so deep you sometimes can't retrieve them - but during a hurricane, who cares?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the in depth reply. I was going down the Manson S route anyway, and you have just reinforced my conclusions.
I will keep my Big D, as I am embarrassed to say, I only have one anchor anyway.

Thanks again.......

Joe.
 
Delfin: I'm interested in your comments about Delta anchors, particularly about bending their shanks. It is quite well known, Craig Smith told me so it must be true, that Peter Smith made pretty much an exact copy of the Delta shank for the Rocna, as he thought it would be difficult to improve upon it. Whilst copying he also carried out destructive metallurgical testing on it. I have the tensile strength figures at home but not here; my recollection is that they were around 700 MPa. I have never heard of a bent one although I have a photo of bent flukes, which looks like a massive sideways overload. Would be interested to hear of your findings.

I agree about dragging though. In very soft bottoms they will drag in strong winds. My 20 years experience with them was all on bottoms with a significant sand content, mostly UK and Dutch west coast, where I never had a problem. Only when I reached Greece, where some bays have a bottom of fluid mud, did I have a problem.
 
What I would like to see is a comparison in anchor sizes/weights. I have seen tests showing modern designs holding about 6 times more chain tension than a humble CQR for the same weight. Does that mean I could use a one sixth weight modern anchor to replace a perfectly adequate big CQR?
Alternatively, how about cost? I can get about 4 Delta anchors for the price of 1 Rocna. So would setting two Deltas hold half as well as one Rocna?

When in doubt, I dunk two anchors anyway and I can't afford one Rocna/Manson, never mind two.
 
My Fortress FX37 is only 9Kg, it's on 10mm chain throughout; it's much better than my 21Kg Danforth (holding and easier to handle). In muddy/soft sand conditions, it's the best anchor I've ever used. Getting it back is a problem t times, but patience, knowing how well the anchor works, and a good winch gets us around that.

"Alternatively, how about cost? I can get about 4 Delta anchors for the price of 1 Rocna. So would setting two Deltas hold half as well as one Rocna?" And there lies the crux of the problem of modern anchors, the huge cost, and the shear size of them!

I've spoken to the techie people who make the Delta and asked them why the others (Rocna, Manson, etc) are all 5-10 KG heavier for boat weight/size than the Delta; the answer was "I don't know, maybe it's the design- it isn't as good."... I gave them the weight/length of my boat and they still came back with with 10Kg lighter than a Rocna, maybe the design isn't as good and they are relying on the extra weight to help make it work! A modern 12.5m AWB is about half the weight of my old girl, and they and still advise on 20Kg for my 15 tons, 33Kg for the Rocna and a new bow roller setup over £1,000!

An extra 5-10 Kg of weight is going t make a hell of a difference on an 8-10 ton boat, but do you need really it?


 
Last edited:
vyv_cox said:
Delfin: I'm interested in your comments about Delta anchors, particularly about bending their shanks. It is quite well known, Craig Smith told me so it must be true, that Peter Smith made pretty much an exact copy of the Delta shank for the Rocna, as he thought it would be difficult to improve upon it. Whilst copying he also carried out destructive metallurgical testing on it. I have the tensile strength figures at home but not here; my recollection is that they were around 700 MPa. I have never heard of a bent one although I have a photo of bent flukes, which looks like a massive sideways overload. Would be interested to hear of your findings.

I agree about dragging though. In very soft bottoms they will drag in strong winds. My 20 years experience with them was all on bottoms with a significant sand content, mostly UK and Dutch west coast, where I never had a problem. Only when I reached Greece, where some bays have a bottom of fluid mud, did I have a problem.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would dignify my comments as "findings", but thank you for making them sound important! If you search "Bent Deltas" on Cruisersforum.com you'll find a couple of relevant threads. The first thread deals with a stainless Delta, which is irrelevant since ss copies of designed made for other materials frequently have problems and make no comment to the strength of the original. However, there is in that thread a picture of a bent steel Delta shank that was contributed by someone else. The most meaningful comment is in the second thread from a dealer in South Florida who said over the years he had seen a "very few" bent Delta shanks, so if he has seen some presumably there are others.

I have never been able to find out what steel is used in the Delta shank - seems proprietary. I should think that because it is thicker than either a Rocna or Manson, if it did have a tensile of 700 MPa it would not likely bend, but I think you would be most likely to have that data. I do note that they don't warranty the anchor against bending, but realistically any anchor shank can bend if you apply enough force. In real world conditions, I can't find a reference to a Bisalloy 80 shank ever bending. I am sure there must be some out there, but I've never heard of one. Bis 80 is used in the Manson Supreme, used to be used in the Rocna and is used in the Sarca Excel. In a recent test in Practical Sailor an Excel shank withstood 4500 pounds without bending, and I doubt one could ever put that much loading on a properly snubbed chain rode or mixed rode setup.

Regarding dragging, yeah, Deltas can drag as can CQRs, Bruces, Rocnas, Mansons etc. Technique counts but some bottoms just don't provide decent holding. In terms of reported dragging, the Delta seems better than some and worse than others but as I said, I excluded it because I don't think it qualifies as a "3rd generation" anchor, which I took to be the OP's interest. Still a very good anchor and more reasonably priced than alternatives. One mystery I can't solve is why the Sarca Excel is so much better than the Delta when if you put them side by side they look so similar. The only thing I can think of is that the turned down point helps the Excel dig in and bury itself better, which it certainly does. The designer says there are lots of differences and I take him at his word (he has patents), but I don't know what all they are.


http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/delta-anchor-bent-64970.html
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/any-delta-anchor-construction-failures-out-there-65937.html
 
RAI said:
What I would like to see is a comparison in anchor sizes/weights. I have seen tests showing modern designs holding about 6 times more chain tension than a humble CQR for the same weight. Does that mean I could use a one sixth weight modern anchor to replace a perfectly adequate big CQR?
Alternatively, how about cost? I can get about 4 Delta anchors for the price of 1 Rocna. So would setting two Deltas hold half as well as one Rocna?

When in doubt, I dunk two anchors anyway and I can't afford one Rocna/Manson, never mind two.
Click to expand...
Depending on the design, weight does seem to matter a great deal on efficiency. My experience with a 20 kg Bruce for 20 years taught me to be very careful when I anchored to make sure I was truly set and even then I dragged occasionally. However, Delfin started with an 80 kg Claw which held her in 55 knots without budging. With that lunker, it drop and go - I guess because the sheer weight ensured that it began to set and gravity set it deeper as the load increased. So in that design, a mediocre anchor became a very good anchor just by scaling it up. I think this is really what "3rd generation" anchors are all about - greater efficiency in lower weights compared to older designs. Whether they are worth it or not is a pretty tough question to answer, but I put my anchor in the insurance cost column. Cheap compared to the boat.
 
BigJoe said:
Thanks for the in depth reply. I was going down the Manson S route anyway, and you have just reinforced my conclusions.
I will keep my Big D, as I am embarrassed to say, I only have one anchor anyway.

Thanks again.......

Joe.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of anyone who regretted buying a Supreme, as long as there weren't any issues with fitting it on the boat. I'm sure you'll love it to. Incidentally, if you measure the shank of your Supreme at the halfway point, calculate the steel profile area and compare it to the same size Rocna you'll find yours has more steel, in addition to it being quite a bit stronger (650 MPa average yield for the Rocna vs 750 average yield for the Manson).
 
RAI said:
So what percentage of boat value should be allocated to the anchor, and chain, and samson post and bow structure..... ? I still think two anchors are more secure than one.
Click to expand...
I dunno. In my case I was willing to spend 5 months insurance premiums on an anchor, but I'm afraid the question is like asking how long a piece of string is. And I'm sure you're right - if you can manage two anchors without getting them balls up together they'd have to be stronger than one, or at least it seems so.
 
Delta materials - I only know that it is described as a manganese steel, a fairly common constructional steel, particularly in shipbuilding. To comply with anchor gear rules the carbon content cannot be more than 0.23% but is probably well under this. The manganese content is likely to be four times the carbon to avoid brittle fracture at low seawater temperatures. I'm not sure of the mechanism by which strength is provided but I assume heat treatment similar to G7 chain, which has similar composition. Figures on my website under Anchoring>chain.

The stainless Delta is normalised 316, no attempt to strengthen. I have had some correspondence with Lewmar over it, they acknowledge that its strength in bending is low.

Rocna sizing - I am not up to date with their sizing policy since CMP took over, but when I bought my NZ made one I was assured that the recommended size was the biggest that would ever be needed in any conceivable conditions. I replaced my 15 kg Delta with a 16 kg Rocna, which has never dragged. Interestingly, last year we anchored with noelex and another boat, a 32 ft boat with a size bigger Rocna than ours. He was finding extreme difficulty in getting it to set and we watched him drag several times under engine. Little more than the tip was penetrating the seabed, whereas ours was well buried.
 
Last edited:
vyv_cox said:
Delta materials - I only know that it is described as a manganese steel, a fairly common constructional steel, particularly in shipbuilding. To comply with anchor gear rules the carbon content cannot be more than 0.23% but is probably well under this. The manganese content is likely to be four times the carbon to avoid brittle fracture at low seawater temperatures. I'm not sure of the mechanism by which strength is provided but I assume heat treatment similar to G7 chain, which has similar composition. Figures on my website under Anchoring>chain.

The stainless Delta is normalised 316, no attempt to strengthen. I have had some correspondence with Lewmar over it, they acknowledge that its strength in bending is low.

Rocna sizing - I am not up to date with their sizing policy since CMP took over, but when I bought my NZ made one I was assured that the recommended size was the biggest that would ever be needed in any conceivable conditions. I replaced my 15 kg Delta with a 16 kg Rocna, which has never dragged. Interestingly, last year we anchored with noelex and another boat, a 32 ft boat with a size bigger Rocna than ours. He was finding extreme difficulty in getting it to set and we watched him drag several times under engine. Little more than the tip was penetrating the seabed, whereas ours was well buried.
Click to expand...
That is odd information on the Rocna.

Speaking of stainless steel's resistance to bending, this is shackle that I used for a spinnaker halyard. I was up the mast in a bosun's chair on that halyard when I heard a 'clink', I grabbed the mast like a monkey, then the halyard fell on my head. A good reason to make sure seizing stays put, but I thought the deformation interesting. Just like toffee.

View attachment 33476
 
Richard10002 said:
What I am saying is that, with hindsight, the material doesn't seem to have been dubious. I have not heard of anyone with a Rocna anchor having had an actual problem.
Click to expand...

I have. Bent shanks reported by fishing boat in Las Palmas last November. We also know (admitted by Holdfast) of the bent shank in venice which started the whole saga.

Bob
 
GHA said:
:) :)

Gets heated quickly. Shouts of troll in response to request for some data to back up claims.
Click to expand...
No shouts, just an observation that you don't read what is written, put words in other people's mouths to bolster whatever point it is you are trying to make, and seem to feel that if you are disagreed with that it is an insult to your manhood. Characteristics normally associated with Trolls looking to create controversy. So just to re-cap, the thread started with an OP looking to replace an anchor. I observed that the Rocna has a weaker shank than alternative hoop anchors (fact), but opined that IMO, a burying anchor is the best choice. Apparently you own a Rocna, so my observation that there have been quite a few bent shanks (also a fact) on that particular brand was taken amiss. The OP, sensibly, chose to purchase an equivalent design without these issues and no doubt will be pleased with his purchase. That should be the end of the story, and the thread, but apparently not.

I doubt whether the new and improved Rocna made by CMP will have many bent shanks. Q620 is pretty robust, but consistent with the OP's decision, it is not as strong as Bis 80, so why not avoid, unless saving $25 makes a big difference to you.

And yes, you still appear to be a troll, even though I say it without shouting in the least.
 
Ariadne said:
I told you it would turn back into a Rocna thread, every anchor thread does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I think that happens because if you state that Rocna has had QC problems in the past (a fact), and that even the current iteration is demonstrably weaker than equally performing alternatives (also a fact), many current Rocna owners feel the need to dive in to prove they aren't dopes for having bought one, and the conversation gets steered in that direction. Well, they probably aren't dopes. If you have one made in NZ, it is as strong as the designer says it needs to be, and it's a fine anchor. If you bought one made in China before CMP took it over, then you may have been screwed, but it isn't your fault because you were lied to, and it may not make a difference unless you find yourself in an anchoring situation that is more challenging than normal. But if you are considering buying one now (like the OP), my only point is that you should ask yourself whether the price differential of the Rocna vs. the Manson Supreme justifies the simple fact that the Rocna is weaker than the Supreme. If it is sufficiently cheaper, then God Bless you, may you anchor without incident for years to come.
 
Delfin said:
No shouts, just an observation that you don't read what is written, put words in other people's mouths to bolster whatever point it is you are trying to make, and seem to feel that if you are disagreed with that it is an insult to your manhood. Characteristics normally associated with Trolls looking to create controversy. So just to re-cap, the thread started with an OP looking to replace an anchor. I observed that the Rocna has a weaker shank than alternative hoop anchors (fact), but opined that IMO, a burying anchor is the best choice. Apparently you own a Rocna, so my observation that there have been quite a few bent shanks (also a fact) on that particular brand was taken amiss. The OP, sensibly, chose to purchase an equivalent design without these issues and no doubt will be pleased with his purchase. That should be the end of the story, and the thread, but apparently not.

I doubt whether the new and improved Rocna made by CMP will have many bent shanks. Q620 is pretty robust, but consistent with the OP's decision, it is not as strong as Bis 80, so why not avoid, unless saving $25 makes a big difference to you.

And yes, you still appear to be a troll, even though I say it without shouting in the least.
Click to expand...


..


as... you walk the docks and look at Rocna shanks you will begin to see a number of bent shanks.
... buy a Supreme that
has no reported bent shanks made out of Q690 steel, or buy a Rocna that has lots of them and is made out of weaker Q620 steel.....
Click to expand...
Both these statements make it sound like the problem with Rocnas is on going , as you seem skilled with words the temptation is to suspect this isn't down to sloppy language. Use the troll card much as you want, requests for data to back up claims are perfectly acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top